What is the real reason why the GOP Establishment want to stop Trump?

by Patricia L. Dickson3/8/16
The two current frontrunners for the Republican Party nomination for the presidency are Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Marco Rubio is a distant third or fourth, depending on the primary. The GOP establishment has not hidden its intention to thwart Donald Trump from securing the party’s nomination. The latest attempt was to bring out Mitt Romney to speculate out loud that Trump is hiding a bombshell in his taxes. Romney followed up with a scathing public rebuke of Trump in a speech where he laid out his indictment against Trump. However, missing from his indictment was his endorsement of one of the remaining candidates. Also missing from Romney’s speech was what it was that turned him against Trump, since just four years earlier, he sought Trump’s endorsement and sang his praises.

The second effort being discussed to prevent Trump from securing the party’s nomination is the so-called nuclear option. It is the option presented that has me wondering what the GOP establishment’s objective really is. The reason given by the GOP establishment for a need to stop Trump from getting the nomination and possibly the presidency is that he poses an existential threat to the party. According to the party leaders, he would redefine what it means to be a Republican and a conservative. For that reason, he must be stopped. However, their only alternative to Trump is Rubio. According to an article in the Telegraph, there is a roadmap to how a contested convention can play out:

It’s possible that a deal could yet be struck. Maybe some power broker could conceivably convince Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich to come together, with the expectation that Rubio would be president, Kasich would be vice president, and Cruz would be attorney general or a Supreme Court appointment? It’s probably illegal to make such promises, but it could be stressed, for example, that Cruz would be given every consideration for this spot. Then again, it could also be that once the delegates are no longer bound, they could vote for someone who isn’t even running for president — say, Mitt Romney or Speaker Paul Ryan.

How is it that Cruz is second in line, yet they don’t see him as an alternative to Trump? Does Cruz, a current serving senator in the party, pose an existential threat to the party as well? Is Cruz not a conservative? No one ever suggests Cruz as an alternative to Trump as part of the nuclear option. The majority of Trump’s and Cruz’s supporters would be willing to support either one if he won the nomination fair and square. So why is it that the GOP establishment alternative to Trump is Rubio, who is a distant third or fourth in line, or Romney?

These unanswered questions lead me to believe that the reason given by the GOP establishment against a Trump presidency is not real. In fact, no one in the party’s leadership has explained what exactly makes him an existential threat to the party. I can accept their claims that he sometimes comes across as unpolished, and maybe they feel he would be an embarrassment. I can accept that they may not agree with some of his policies. However, no one has explained how Trump’s vow to build a wall and bring jobs back from overseas poses an existential threat to the Republican Party.

Perhaps the real reason they must stop Trump and Cruz is personal. Judge Jeanine Pirro gave a scathing explanation for the real reason Romney and the party leaders want to get rid of Trump: they want to hold on to power. They have even gone so far as to say that it would be better for Clinton to win rather than Trump. It is unbelievable how far they will go.

66 Responses to What is the real reason why the GOP Establishment want to stop Trump?

What bothers me is there is so much kool-aid in the pro-Trump crowd. One commenter to this article at AT wrote:

Ted Cruz is bought and paid for. The same for Marco Rubio and John Kasich.

His name is Gary Dickson. I don’t know if that’s any relation. But it’s okay for Trump to be someone’s favorite without having to trash an honorable man.

It is, of course, true that the eGOP wants to maintain power. Who doesn’t other than such rare individuals as George Washington who surrendered his sword to Congress at the cessation of hostilities with England?

And if Trump was president, the GOP — broadly speaking — would be in power. Certainly they’d have more power than having the House and/or Senate but someone like Hillary as president.

So let’s get down to things. What the GOP wants is power, yes, but in their own nicey-nice country-club terms. If we are to be Republicans, we must first off respect “diversity.” And what that means is not opposing the Left in the culture wars.

The way this governing coalition supposedly works (and, remember, Jeb! thought he could win without the GOP base) is that instead of actually refuting the Leftist narrative and showing the source and reason for this dishonest narrative — let alone forwarding our own — we try to show everyone that we aren’t racists, sexists, homophobes, the whole SIXHERB (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted) Pragerian thing. In essence, we take the truth of the Democrat claims as a sort of given and spend our time softly refuting it rather than forwarding our own narrative (and forwarding a similarly uncomplimentary narrative of the Left…something you should note that Mr. Politically Incorrect Trump has not done).

So the “tolerant” eGOP is just fine calling Islam a “religion of peace” while ignoring the ugly reality. They are against abortion except when it comes time to actually limiting abortion. Mustn’t be cast in the “war on women” role.

It has been noted by finer minds than my own in the past that the GOP sometimes would rather not be in power at all. This is so they won’t have to have their fingerprints on any “controversial” legislation. It’s much better for them, as is their habit, to bemoan all the stuff the Democrats are doing and then forward the narrative, “If only we had the House.” And then when they have the House they say “We can’t do anything. If only we had the Senate too.” And then when they have the Senate and the House they say “We still can’t get anything done. If only we had the presidency as well.”

And from where I’m sitting, Donald Trump would seem to have a better than even chance to become the next president. So if we add up all the “if only’s” from the eGOP, what gives? Even if he isn’t your first choice, what could be better than your party in power?

Yes, partly this stems from their dislike of Trump who is not “one of us.” (Neither was Reagan. And to the Trumpkins out there, they should remember that neither is Cruz.) Trump embarrasses them as does Cruz, but in different ways. Trump embarrasses them because he does not play the “polite” game where you look at shit and call it Shinola. Cruz embarrasses them because he shows the eGOP hypocrisies. (And I’m not at all sure how that is being “bought and paid for.”) Both are insurgents in a game whereby the eGOP pretends to be red-white-and-blue conservative but where they actually do little but keep the seats warm for the next future Democrat majority.

The eGOP is a corrupt institution. And it’s not corrupt simply because it wants to maintain power. It’s corrupt because it is ideologically corrupt. It lies to its voters and it lies to itself. The eGOP is in deep denial over who they are and what they have been doing. They see Trump as the great unwashed and themselves as the polishers of the ivory tower. To have thought that it was a good idea running Romney out there to make their case shows a tone-deafness I’ve never quite seen before.

That the eGOP is sour does not necessarily mean that Donald Trump (or Ted Cruz) is sweet. And I think a considerable amount of kool-aid is being consumed in this regard. Trump, for example, has already started to walk back his immigration policy. (I expect a President Trump to basically do nothing substantial in this regard.) We’ll see how this plays out. Reagan didn’t put a stake through the heart of the Establishment GOP and neither would a Trump. There will always be those for whom life and politics is determined not by ideas but by the general air and comportment of a “gentleman’s club.” And as they believe in the eGOP, true gentleman do not have vociferous disagreements.

So you have Obama and the Left tearing apart this country and the eGOP has already deluded itself about the righteousness of doing little about it. Of course they hate Trump and Cruz. They hate anyone who actually would do something and thereby show them to be the useless slugs that they are.

The GOPe have no ideology other than position and money. They stand for nothing else. Hollow men. They are like eighteenth century aristocrats in the court of Louis XVI just before the revolution. They game the system, are besotted with their positions and have no idea what is happening outside their chateaus.

Oh, I don’t believe that in the least, Mr. Kung. That would be to dig no further under the surface than Patricia did. All bureaucrats and pencil-pushers (in elective office or otherwise) love power and position. But usually one must actually do something to get there.

I would not bemoan for one instant the position and money of a President Cruz (or Trump) and a GOP House and Senate if they actually pursued a reformist, conservative, constitutional, free-market, pro-liberty agenda. I’ll light their damn cigars for them with a five dollar bill if need be.

It’s not the power and money that is the problem, per se. It’s the old Kabuki theatre game the eGOP has been playing with its voters whereby they pretend to be conservative but once they get in office they soon lose all interest in doing anything in the least “controversial” (with “controversy” defined by the Left). And it would be absolutely true to say that the enormous amount of power and money is a corruptive influence. Even so, one must understand something Rush has long noted: If power, money, and position are all the that eGOP want, then god why don’t they then use the ammunition that have on Obama and the Left? They could rule the roost.

The reason? They’re not ideologically hostile to the Left. They’ve all undergone (for the most part) the same Ivy League progressive indoctrination. And we see time after time how the eGOP is not simply the “sit on the power and prestige and take no risks” milquetoast organization we assume them to be, for they will show a fair amount of fire and brimstone — when it comes to trashing actual conservatives.

The eGOP, despite giving lip service to conservatism, are hostile to conservatives. They hold an ideology very similar to that of the Left. This is the hard truth. And many have faced it, which is to their credit. This is no doubt the reason both Cruz and Trump are having success. People recognize that, although they might not be sure of either of these gentlemen’s good intentions, they know the eGOP doesn’t like them, and that’s a good enough pedigree for them.

If power, money, and position are all the that eGOP want, then god why don’t they then use the ammunition that have on Obama and the Left? They could rule the roost.

Who says they believe that they could be victorious against Obama and the Left? Maybe the would and maybe they wouldn’t. It is not in the nature of these people to cause uncertainty. Uncertainty means greater risks and regardless of what people might think, businessmen do no like risk. (a few speculators notwithstanding)

I do not question that many of the GOPe are not interested in conservative social issues. If conservative social mores were to win, not only would it restrict the personal behavior of the Masters of the Universe, but it would cut back business profits hugely. Think of all the business now gone mainstream which was not possible only 50 years ago. The huge materialistic consumer binge itself is not particularly conservative.

Nothing you have written convinces me that the GOPe are pushing the Leftist agenda because they believe it. Their basic motivation is and always will be, money and power. Knowing the world and business as they do, they understand flexibility is required in order to make money. They see the way the culture is going and go with the flow.

As one businessman said to me many years ago when discussing dealing with the head of some government department which handled government tenders;

Who says they believe that they could be victorious against Obama and the Left? Maybe the would and maybe they wouldn’t.

I think the issue at hand is that they don’t want to oppose Obama and the Left with the same passion that they oppose, say, Cruz. And I think that is due to ideology and, as they see it, the liberalization of America. They’re just going with the flow.

When you frame a question as you did, I’m forced to become a mind-reader. And I’m glad to do so. I believe what Rush says that “Conservatism wins every time its tried.” And, in fact, a good many people (such as Rubio) gained elective office by acting like a conservative. It’s governing as a conservative that has been the problem.

So if parroting the rhetoric of a conservative is good enough to gain office, why not then govern as one and consolidate one’s forces and advantage? Again, I think it’s because they do not share the convictions of conservatives. Some of this is influenced by the press. The press is very liberal and the eGOP is like a prisoner who has developed a strangely warm and familiar relationship with his captors — Stockholm Syndrome.

But even then, Ronald Reagan himself is example enough that one can do an end-run around the media and actually shape opinion rather than merely reacting to somebody’s else’s. So why don’t they? I think the best explanation is that they see no future in conservative policies. Much like the Democrats, they see people in flyover country as hayseeds, as the “bitter clingers.” They’ll pander to them to gain elective office, but they wish to marry (as Jeb! was honest enough to admit) a Mr. and Mrs. (and Ms.) Progressive Big-Tent Liberalish Coalition. Your rank-and-file American is just a stepping-stone until he can be put safely in the rearview mirror.

Again, let it sink in that the eGOP heir apparent (Bush) had planned to win the presidency without the base. This gigantic fact must be appreciated for the gigantic fact that it is. The eGOP sees the future of the party in some version of socialism lite, but by no means do they see the legitimacy and fidelity of the Constitution as something so sacrosanct that they’ll bleed on a hill for it. They’ve adopted the major tenet of the Left, and that is that government does not exist to preserve for us our essential liberties. It exists to give to us various “free stuff,” to act as a nanny state.

Both Cruz (his issues with the eGOP are no secret, even to Trumpbots if they are honest) and Trump (a bad-ass capitalist, self-made man of confidence and American vigor) are, at least on the face of it, not consistent with (as Rush notes) merely “managing America’s decline.”

The devil is in the details. And there are a lot of them little devils.

Nothing you have written convinces me that the GOPe are pushing the Leftist agenda because they believe it. Their basic motivation is and always will be, money and power.

Well, I think you’re blinded to the progressive-like ideology that is common amongst the eGOP. They do have an ideology. And, yes, as is the norm with human nature, they (as well as Democrats) love money and power. But to just slice this question down to money and power does not begin to explain all the behavior of the eGOP. You suppose they couldn’t work with Trump? Trump would be putty in their hands. Trump would come into office as a “deal-maker” in need of making deals. And the validation of those deals would belong to the eGOP (if they hold current majorities).

But they don’t like Trump. And not because of control issues or power issues. Trump is not one of them. Call it “identity” or ideology. But the eGOP has one. And, yes, the game is apparently rigged so both sides of the aisle find a way to make a lot of money in office. But it would be just as silly for me, on a Democrat web site, to say “Democrats are only in it for the power.” Yes, to some extent, that is true, especially for a party that requires huge amounts of government power to enact their agenda. But they have their ideology.

That also is the best argument for ascribing “power for the sake of power” to the eGOP, for they don’t typically use what power they have to do a heck of a lot. But even that’s more of a myth. What laws they pass tend to be Progressivism Lite. Their major initiatives are of the “me too” variety. As Rush Limbaugh mentioned to Marco Rubio when he was on his program once, “Why do you in the GOP think you have to always come up with a counter-initiative to whatever the GOP is doing? Why not just say ‘no,’ and explain why such-and-such is not the purview of American-style government?”

It was a great question. And the answer is easy: The eGOP has adopted the vision of government as an active influence in our lives. They’ve adopted the now common belief that to do nothing is malfeasance, if not outright cruelty. This dumbed-down vision of America, which puts liberty on the back burner, is what drives them. They’re offering up their policies under the Big Government scenario. They can call it “compassionate conservatism” or whatever, but they’ve surrendered to FDR and certainly have not picked up the mantle of Reagan.

No, no one can guarantee that a conservative, rather than an eGOP agenda, would be effective against the Democrats. The problem is the expectations that people (particularly women) now have of government. The eGOP is as trapped in the need to keep funding bread and circuses as the old Roman emperors were. It’s not easy doing what is right. Still, given the success of Reagan and the success of conservative candidates in the GOP, even a blind man could see that some ideas are still quite popular (because they are timeless) if promoted.

But the eGOP doesn’t want to. And I insist that their ideology forbids it. It is repugnant to them to actually govern as a conservative. And they certainly see no future in it.

I have been trying to figure out the origin of the GOPe’s animosity for Trump and it is a puzzle.

Their hate for Cruz is easier to figure out. He is a super-intelligent young man in a hurry and does not play by the “rules.” Furthermore, he appears to have a fair amount of character and holds to a few basic beliefs which are not negotiable. During his short time in the Senate, he has made most of the leadership look bad and called them out for their lies.

An intelligent, ambitious, self-confident, rule-breaking whipper-snapper who does not defer to his betters, kiss the ring, wait his turn and points out the emperor has no clothes…Well, you get the picture.

But what about Trump? I sometimes think that there is something going on which the public is not aware of. But could something so important be kept secret for so long especially when Trump is getting stronger? I doubt it.

I have come to the conclusion that the GOPe hates and fears Trump because they can neither control nor predict what he will do.

Trump has not come up through the party system thus has not been vetted and molded to the party’s requirements. His is not part of the personal web of contacts which is always part of such organizations, thus is not subject to the carrot and stick pressures commonly used by such cliques.

The party has no really inside personal information on him with which they could pressure his decisions. They can’t buy him either. So he is out of their control. He does not have to do their bidding, his deal-making proclivities notwithstanding.

In other words, Trump is an unpredictable wildcard and as I have said before, businessmen/plutocrats are no heroes. They desire control and predictability above all other considerations.

I have been trying to figure out the origin of the GOPe’s animosity for Trump and it is a puzzle.

Well, the problem with Trump is that instead of being a “compassionate conservative” (which means a smooth, non-controversial “liberal with benefits”) he actually takes positions on things whereby he approaches that Reaganesque category of “We win, they lose.” And even if this wasn’t the case, his use of the vernacular puts him amongst the great unwashed. The eGOP, first and foremost, thinks it is a superior, Solomon-like, breed of people.

This simple idea of “We win, they lose” (steered toward the Democrats, not the Soviet Union) is anathema to them. Instead of confronting Obama (“We win, he loses”) they take waffling, middling, muddled, non-confrontational positions. The reason for this is that they have already surrendered to the Leftist narrative that to oppose Obama is to be racist — to oppose abortion (in real ways) is to wage a “war on women” — to oppose gay marriage is to be “discriminating,” and on and on. Instead of defending marriage, they insist we “reach out” to homosexuals.

The eGOP are, for all intents and purposes, closet progressives who have absolutely no interest in conservatism other than the power it gives them come election time. Well — finally — that game is up. The curtain has been pulled back. All my idiot friends on Facebook can now say, “You know, 12 years ago Brad was right. He was always right.”

That the eGOP has so poisoned and muddied the waters that we are left with a dubious candidate such as Trump is regretful. But I don’t buy the line that he isn’t “electable.” Again, neither was Reagan. Saying that someone is not “electable” is the eGOP narrative for saying “They are conservative, therefore we don’t want them.” And through the last couple of decades, a lot of otherwise sensible people (I don’t call them my idiot friends on Facebook for nothing) have bought into this.

So Trump is there to pick up the pieces now that this fraudulent game has been exposed and even the great Thomas Sowell acknowledges that there is indeed a GOP Establishment. (Contrast that with Mona Charon who, a few years ago, denied that there was any such thing). And along the way, Trump has picked up quite a few people who for some reason need to disparage a decent man, Ted Cruz. Political contests get heated. But I see no reason to trash Cruz. And it should be a huge warning sign to all Trump supporters that this trashing goes hand-in-hand with being pro-Trump. It will do little good in the long or short run to replace one liar (or liberal) with another.

Brad, let’s not omit that Cruz trashes Trump as well. As far as Cruz being a decent man, that may be true but he brought a lot of criticism on himself. He hired a campaign manager , Jeff Roe, that has a reputation and history of dirty tricks. His motto has always been “win at all cost”. His tricks were so brutal against another political opponent that the guy committed suicide. The guy was Missouri State Auditor Tom Schweich. Jeff Roe is known to leave a path of destruction.

Cruz was aware of all of this when he hired him. So, the saying has always been that a person is known by the company he keeps.

Yep. Cruz hits on Trump as well. All’s fair in love and politics. Short of Jesus Christ running for office, they’re all going to have defects.

And I do think Cruz is a decent man. And it bothers me to read underneath so many (pro or con) Trump articles this hatefulness toward Cruz. This, to me, is pure blind cult-of-personality zealotry. I would consider both men to be the needed wrecking balls being swung toward the GOP Establishment. I think Donald Trump is insufficiently grounded in conservative/American/Constitutional principles to enact any useful reforms. But you never know. If he’s nominated I’ll vote for him and give him a chance.

I don’t doubt there are a lot of unsavory characters amongst the consultant class. Without wanting to disparage an entire class of people (actually, I don’t mind at all), I’ve never been impressed by the consultancy or bureaucratic class — the various hangers-on who profit from campaigns and political parites but really couldn’t give a squat if America ceased to exist as long as their check didn’t bounce.

But I would caution against trying to rationalize Ted Cruz as the Texas Chainsaw Massacrer because of one political consultant. I think that’s biting off way more than the situation can chew. And if unsavory character is the judge, then Trump himself leaves a lot to be desired in this regard.

So I just don’t believe that the Trumpbots are disparaging Cruz because they’ve taken up an appetite for 100% pure and clean politics and candidates. I think they’re either caught in a bit of partisan zealotry or are trying to blow up a smokescreen to blind themselves and others from who the truly unsavory character is. Trump is apparently the guy who threw a family member off of his health care plan because of some trivial dispute, not to mention trying to kick some nice old lady off of her property. I don’t believe the Trumpbot’s outrage over Cruz is fueled by anything but denial.

We could yet have a Trump/Cruz ticket, and then where will all of this have gotten us? Actually, I don’t predict that. I predict Trump will “reach across the aisle” and pick a Democrat as a way to get one or two of the Blue states to swing Red. And this would be a very smart move and does, of course, very much have a precedent. Lincoln had Andrew Johnson (a Democrat) as his VP, for example. Adams (Federalist) had Jefferson (Democratic-Republican). Of course, it was a different method of election back then to get the Adams/Jefferson outcome.

Given the reports on Trump University and its victims, as well as the woman whose home he tried to take for the parking lot of his casino in Atlantic City, Trump supporters hitting at Cruz’s ethics very much have a pot-and-kettle ring to them.

And Ronald Reagan was, for all intents and purposes, married to a (may god rest her soul) very liberal, even kooky, lady. Last time I checked, Heidi Cruz wasn’t running for president. And is Ted Cruz advocating globalist ideas? Not last time I heard. Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen, Patricia. I didn’t watch all that video. But it started with some pretty weak stuff.

A couple of days ago, I posted this comment at ST about some of the absolutely inane claims made by some Trumpkins who seem to think they are very clever at “exposing” Cruz.

My favorite is that there is no difference between Cruz and Hillary. The insanity of this statement is almost beyond comment. If you mention the importance of the Supreme Court they bring up Roberts. Now Roberts was a disappointment on obamacare, but is he as bad as Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer? I think not. It is easy to check how often he voted with Alito and other conservatives and it is something like 90% and better.

The particular claim that Hillary and Cruz are the same came from one man. When I pointed out three areas where there was a huge difference between the two, this fellow pulled a common Trumpkin ploy and changed the subject. He sent me three videos on totally different subjects. By coincidence, one of these was the one Patricia posted today at ST.

I told the man that I would reply to his videos when he replied to my post laying out the three differences between Clinton and Cruz.
Of course, I heard nothing more from him, which I thought a shame as I had taken the time to watch one of the videos and had the following reply waiting for him. Since I didn’t get to use it then, I will gladly use it now.

First of all, who the hell is Rick Wells and that guy in the presentation? Never heard of them and don’t know what makes them experts. As to the contents of the video, it starts out with music which might be appropriate for a third rate horror movie. Then it makes Reagan the bad guy, who is followed by a string of other bad guys that have become presidents.

The only thing is really says about Cruz is that his wife belonged to the CFR and was on a committee which wrote some report. Nowhere is it shown that Cruz is a one-worlder or that he has done anything dishonest or nefarious.

And by the way, if you were unfortunate to watch the whole thing throw to the end, as I was, the claims on the Trans Texas Corridor are at the most, only partially correct. The Trans Texas Corridor was not stopped because the people of Texas were so strongly against trade. It was stopped because the SOB governor was trying to put it over on Texans without their approval. He, like Donald Trump, was a big fan of Imminent Domain, which he was going to rely on heavily to take the land from owners who wanted nothing to do with the TTC. I live in Texas so I know what I am talking about.

The video is all too representative of the superficial and yes DISHONEST stuff which one sees very often on the web, much of which is peddled by Trumpkins. And this is one of the really irritating things about dealing with the Trumpkins. They casually make many unsubstantiated and false claims and leave them floating around cyberspace. But if one wishes to be honest and correct, refuting this nonsense takes often takes a lot of time and effort. Truth and logic seems to be held in low esteem by too many Trumpkins. I liken their methods to a child taking a hand of filth and throwing it against a wall. It takes little effort or thought. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of effort and thought for us to clean it up.

After watching this video, I have reconfirmed my resolve to avoid such sites in future. I lost something like 12-15 minutes of my life, which I can’t get back. The piece has all the hallmarks of a propaganda hit and should be taken as such. I can only laugh at the Trumpkins who claim Cruz is tricky and Trump isn’t.

I vaguely recall being offered the opportunity to join the CFR a few decades back. I never did, nor do I know why I got the offer. For that matter, I have a book on Arab military performance that was published by the CFR (and is quite good. I wonder if they ever got around (perhaps in a different video) to the Trilateralists and Bilderbergers.

The following is another example of the level of discourse one encounters with many Trumpkins. The comments were made under an unfavorable article about Mark Zuckerberg.

Primary Focus: FYI- Facebook by way of their investors also donate to Cruz rubio and killary

Internationalist to Primary Focus: Trump contributed to Hillary and other leftists as well.

vaquero711 to Internationalist: Seriously ? Can you think for yourself ? Or you just bloody leftist zombi?
Anyone in his shoes would contribute to both party in order to stay in business . They create this condition to control and stay in power . That’s was fundamentally wrong in WDC .

Internationalist to vaquero711: This is what is wonderful about Trump supporters such as yourself. You complain and try to smear people who contribute to candidates you don’t like, but when it is pointed out that Trump has contributed to one of the same candidates as well as others, (i.e. he has done exactly the same thing) you make excuses for him and resort to name calling.

Clearly, you are neither logical nor honest.

Trump was close to correct when he said he could shoot someone in the street and his supporters wouldn’t leave him. I don’t think he meant it as a compliment.

vaquero711 to Internationalist: You still don’t get it . Trump was FORCE to contribute . Suckerberg do it cos he is uneducated leftist moron who unexpectedly gets rich and completely lost his mind .What left of it . And why I have to make any excuse for Trump ? He hasn’t done anything illegal . He contribute . He bought influence . Everybody ( who wants to stay in business) doing that . That’s the problem : crony capitalism . That’s why Trump is running : to get rid of this bull crap .

Primary Focus to Internationalist: if you owned as large of corp…you would too…in business you have to deal with politics of all angles and if you don’t shake the right hands…you may be pushed aside

Internationalist to primary focus: The same can be said of Zuckerberg and Facebook plutocrats.

vaquero711 to Internationalist: No, Suckerberg does this VOLUNTARILY . Cos he’s brainwashed leftist idiot . Naive and uneducated . He doesn’t need to change city code or get exemption from regulations in order to built strip mall .

Poor Donald, he is actually a very sweet guy. He was FORCE to do bad things, the others gave political contributions because they were BAD.

It apparently doesn’t occur to vaquero that if Trump gave money in order to gain specific favors from some politicians such as changes in a city code, that would be considered bribery and illegal. Another genius Trump supporter.

There are a couple of important points to consider. Suppose that Trump and Cruz came to the convention with a large majority of delegates between them, but neither had a majority himself. Then suppose the GOP Establishment rejects them and nominates one of its own instead. Do they really think that wouldn’t tear up the party?

As for why they hate Trump and Cruz, there are a couple of connected reasons. First, they don’t control them — and thus they wouldn’t control their administrations. This is so unacceptable that electing Slick Hilly would be no worse for them, and might allow them to regroup (or so they think) for the next election.

And worse yet is what Cruz or Trump would do if uncontrolled — most notably against the interests of the Cheap Labor Lobby. Trump is a random factor, like one of Fred Saberhagen’s Berserkers (which used the random decay of a radioactive element at the centers of their minds), but the support of Jeff Sessions and Joe Arpaio makes it all too likely that he really means it about immigration. So, most likely, does Cruz. Perhaps the key issue today, affecting both national security and the economy as well as the long-term political balance, is preventing The Camp of the Saints from happening (if indeed it can still be prevented). The Beltway Bandits, for various reasons, are on one side of this, and Cruz and Trump (along with us) are on the other.

Then suppose the GOP Establishment rejects them and nominates one of its own instead. Do they really think that wouldn’t tear up the party?

Well, we do know that this is a civil war within the party. They want the conservative faction torn up just as much as we want the progressive/RINO faction torn up.

As for why they hate Trump and Cruz, there are a couple of connected reasons. First, they don’t control them — and thus they wouldn’t control their administrations. This is so unacceptable that electing Slick Hilly would be no worse for them

No, I gotta disagree once again with this increasingly wayward StubbornThing braintrust thinking on this issue. If some prefer Hillary it’s likely because they identify more with her than with Cruz or Trump. That’s the only reasonable explanation other than a spite vote. And I know some of those exist.

I don’t doubt that millions stayed home instead of voting for Romney, a socialist-enabler himself and arguably a member of a fringe cult — not the kind of guy you want leading a charge back to traditionalist America. But I don’t imagine most thought, “Gee, I’m pissed off at the eGOP, I’m going to vote for Obama.” Obama is everything that a normal American despises.

But who knows the numbers? But certainly Rush says he has heard from many high-placed people that they planned on voting for Hillary if Trump was the nominee. And this makes sense to me only from the ideological-cohorts perspective, not the spite perspective. Certainly most informed conservatives acknowledge the real problem of sometimes there being little or no difference between the ideology of the parties and that they all tend to be back-slapping pals behind the scenes — equally hostile to men like Cruz, for example.

And worse yet is what Cruz or Trump would do if uncontrolled — most notably against the interests of the Cheap Labor Lobby. Trump is a random factor, like one of Fred Saberhagen’s Berserkers (which used the random decay of a radioactive element at the centers of their minds)

Again, maybe it’s easy to write that and thus make it sound logical. But does anyone really honestly believe that Trump or any other politician is going to put up with night after night the mainstream media featuring busloads of those poor, underprivileged, victimized illegal aliens being shipped back across the border? Not gonna happen.

Sure, some new laws (or enforcing existing ones) regarding fines for businesses that hire illegals could sting. But I don’t think there are many businessmen at this point who don’t see the floodgates permanently open, or at least open enough for the forceable future that it likely matters very little who is president. That “cheap labor” is here and isn’t going anywhere soon. The precedent has been set. The illegal alien (now euphemized as an “undocumented worker,” which is in common use) is a habit of thought in America. Short of a few mushroom clouds over American cities due to illegal (is there a legal kind?) terrorists from the South, this current situation is now accepted as the status quo.

Michael Barone pointed out a while back that the key to solving the problem of illegal aliens may have been found in Arizona, where they concentrated on getting rid of the incentives. As a result, there was a great reduction of illegals residing there. (This had various effects, which he discussed.) What was done there can be done elsewhere, and in the nation as a whole. And that’s even without additional border security, which is needed for national security if nothing else.

I totally agree with the incentives approach. And one of the first and biggest disincentives ought to be met at the border. Granted, there’s a fait accompli we have to deal with. A wall won’t cure what has already taken place.

But is Trump willing to square with the ideological issues underlying the normalization of illegal aliens? Is he smart enough to do so? Like I said, how can you be for socialized medicine (taking from some to give to others…and to the bureaucracy) and not be for the socialization of borders? That’s all it is. Those who are for “open borders” are for “spreading the wealth” — even in (especially in) punishing America for her success, for they are taught that our wealth came off the backs of “the poor.”

And one need only be reminded of the suicidal multiculturalism in Europe to understand that the ideas underneath the actions must be rebutted. A wall is fine. But that wall won’t be built, nor will it be lasting, until you can confront the ideas and sell better ones. Again, I don’t think Trump has that in him. Nuance is not his middle name. You have to be able to make the intellectual and moral case, and do so in a concise and understandable way.

The sad thing is, Trump may be as intellectually deep as most Americans can handle. He promises to “Make America Great Again.” I won’t sneer at that because, first, it’s a good idea and, second, it’s pretty much what Ronald Reagan promised. But most of his stuff is either about intimidating or smearing his opponents with childish ridicule or stating vapid platitudes. “Where’s the beef” is an issue that comes to mind when talking Trump.

If people want to live without the rule of law, all I ask is that I’m allowed to pick a major law that I don’t have to obey. For illegal aliens, it is our immigration laws. For me it might be the IRS laws. For others it might be traffic laws. This issue of illegal aliens is about the integrity of our country, especially including the idea of the rule of law itself.

But we’ve become such an emotionalized, namby-pamby culture where the main argument for the illegal alien invasion is “Oh, but they have nowhere else to go and they look so poor and pathetic.” Okay, fine. They may be poor and pathetic. But what is the point in transferring a 3rd-world culture (which is responsible for their being poor and pathetic in the first place) to a first-world country? How does that help anyone involved?

But such an idea requires people to think ahead. And no one, or very very few, seem to be able to think past the emotion of the moment. Although the duplicity of the eGOP is responsible for Trump, that isn’t the only reason. It may not even be the main reason.

There’s a nice piece at RealClearPolitics that explains the popularity of Trump in terms of long-term trends in terms of economic and cultural globalism, triggered by the 2008 collapse and bail-outs — and the fact that hte beneficiaries are the elites, with middle Americans as their victims. The link is:

My wife and I were traveling yesterday and stopped for lunch at a truck stop in the Ft. Smith area. The drivers in the restaurant were watching TV and commenting on the news, some very loudly. Some were strong supporters of Trump, some Cruz no other political figure was mentioned. I asked the group of about 15 if they would consider voting for anyone if the nominee was not Trump or Cruz. The response from both Trump and Cruz supporters was and overwhelming NO!

One said, if that happens it will be time for pitchforks and torches and a third party.

Both sides thought they could deal with the other in office, but none thought an establishment prick (sorry pick) would do. While this is a small sample among truckers it seems to follow the general options of the residents of NW Arkansas. No one wants Hillary, but even more they do not want another Romney, McCain or Bush.

My intent in writing the article was to reveal to the reader the REAL reason for the GOP’s quest in stopping Trump. The GOP wants the voter to think that it is Trump as a person that they reject. However, their opposition has nothing to do with Trump the man (many of these individuals had no problem with him until he began his candidacy), it is the policies he is proposing. It also has nothing to do with his conservative bona fide. If that were the case, they would have embraced Cruz. What they are doing in attacking Trump the man is distracting the voter from their real agenda of unfettered immigration.

As I mentioned in the article ,Trump’s and Cruz’s supporters will willingly vote for either one that wins the nomination. It is the GOPe that wants to thwart the will of the people. Instead of the Trumpetts and Cruzbots fighting each other, we should be fighting our real enemy the GOPe.

There is an article by Rick Moran over at the American Thinker today that claims that the establishment is HOLDING their noses and slowly deciding to back Cruz
in order to stop Trump. The article does not hide the distaste that these elites have for Cruz. They are basically saying that they hate him but they need him to take out someone else that they hate because their guys failed at it. If I were Cruz, I would not have anything to do with these people. They cannot be trusted. In addition, Cruz would lose his outsider bona fides by aligning with these GOP establishment people who only want to use him for the end goal. The American people need to seriously wake up!

I think there are a variety of reasons to oppose Trump. I think the eGOP dislike of him has entirely to do with his uncouthness. He is the fly in their Kumbaya ointment of “diversity” and “inclusiveness.”

Have you sat in a car with Michael Reagan — who bragged to me that he had Jeb! on speed dial — and been lectured on how we need to not put up walls but “reach out” to the various groups? I have. And I asked him, “Doesn’t ‘reaching out’ really mean pandering to them or otherwise agreeing with them? Shouldn’t our message — presented gently or otherwise — be to disagree with them and show them a better way?”

God bless Michael Reagan and his recent loss. He’s a tremendously nice man. But he is of the Establishment mindset. And it would be wrong to dismiss this mindset as simply about power and control. The ethic of the eGOP is to be so “nice” to everyone that we’ll all see that they’re not the mean-spirited SIXHIRBs (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted) that everyone keeps saying that Republicans are. Amazingly, they are shadow-boxing within the box made for them by the Left, a game they can never win, much like Charlie Brown could never kick the football that Lucy was holding.

So I totally get the excitement over Trump in regards to Trump not (supposedly) being PC, and not kowtowing to the press. We need a fighter not one who will “reach across the aisle” which means to water down conservatism and take on liberalism. It’s just my assertion that there is no good evidence that Trump will pull this country rightward.

The eGOP certainly believes in open borders because of the Donor Class that Rush says is a huge influence in the party. Rush has basically said that it is they, not the voters, who control the agenda. Once they are elected (after having first fooled us that the are conservative), they are then governed by different rules.

And not to insert too much psycho-babble, but a lot of human rhetoric serves the purpose of rationalizing or otherwise trying to launder what are actually pretty base motives. No doubt there are some in the eGOP who believe it is mean to kick illegal aliens out. But I suspect this love of the illegal aliens is a mask for their own perfidy.

But not just that. The eGOP sees conservatives as a liability. For us, the “social issues” — which the eGOP sees as needlessly divisive — are important to us. (And I consider adherence to the Constitution one of the biggest social issues of all.) Jeb Bush was at least honest enough to admit that he — the standard-bearer of the eGOP — intended to win the nomination and national election without the base. Thus it is too narrow to say that the eGOP is for amnesty simply because their business donors want it. They also see it as a strategy to bring aboard hispanics.

The eGOP has totally adopted the outlook of the Left which is to divide us into various grievance or victim groups based upon superficial characteristics. They no longer even try to appeal to human universals, which is the foundation of the Republican Party.

I agree that the eGOP wants to thwart the will of the people. But the “will of the people” can, in this case, be defined as the GOP base. Conservatives need to wake up and understand they they are not valued. They are considered an embarrassment. The eGOP has a progressive, Big Government agenda. And those who believe in the integrity of the Constitution, the sanctity and necessity of the family, and just the need for manliness in a world gone feminine crazy, are impediments to “going with the flow” of Leftist/Progressive culture.

And that’s probably the way it will go anyway. Fewer and fewer people are steeped in the basics of American History and Western Civilization. Just as Christianity has become a falsity in many places, infused by Leftism — to the point of having a false pope — so conservatism (if that word is still used in the future) will become a shadow of what it once was. Conservatives believe in institutional memory, the need for a guiding tradition, and for wisdom to trump pop fads. But that memory is being erased. And it pains me to say that Trump is likely a product of this forgetfulness and thus by no means an antidote to liberalism.

I assume the conventional wisdom is correct. Romney’s job was to undermine Trump (who is seemingly on his pathway to the nomination) by getting people to support Kasich, Cruz, or Rubio, especially in “winner take all” states. This would deny Trump the necessary delegates. The eGOP would then swoop in and presumably draft Rubio or another eGOP candidate that shares their secret handshake.

There are rumblings out there now that the eGOP is becoming willing to stomach Cruz, who they all hate about as much as they hate Trump.

That seems to be a fair description of what may be playing out. But the eGOP just doesn’t like either Trump or Cruz. Trump is a heathen, as far as they are concerned, and Cruz is one of those problematic people that any organization comes to hate — the one who asks, “Hey…you’re just making this stuff up. You’re not playing by the rules.” Corruption easily becomes a habit and people do not like those who point out their corruption.

I don’t really know if the eGOP has it in mind to re-write the rules before the convention — sort of a scorched earth tactic — and try to shove Rubio, Romney, or even Bush down our throats. But they’ve been pretty tone-deaf so far. They don’t seem to get it.

My view on seeking racial minority votes was heavily influenced by a pair of items I read over the years. One involved Jesse Helms, who in a tight (as usual) race in 1984 devoted a weekend to campaigning among rural black voters in eastern North Carolina. He didn’t pander to their racial sensibilities, but ran as Jesse Helms, pointing out where they agreed (social issues such as abortion). As a result, he got 15% of the black vote, whereas Reagan got 5%. Since Helms won 53-47, those black votes may have turned a draw into a clear if close win.

The other item was something I read in NR, about ads on a local black station in Missouri (I think it was in Kansas City). The Demagogues ran plenty of ads, the GOP none. Since that was the sort of radio or TV station blacks listened to, they never heard the GOP message. And so, naturally, they ignored it.

Trump is currently getting 25% of the black vote. The first black Mayor in a Mississippi town endorsed Trump. It was one of the factors that helped him win the state. Trump gets black votes because he vows to bring back jobs to the community. It is as simple as that.

There is a disturbing report about the Trump campaign. It seems that at a recent rally, Trump was asked a question about affirmative action by Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields. His campaign manager then took her down, a physical assault that left her bruised. At first it appeared that the defense was that they didn’t recognize her, and thought she was a hostile reporter (which would NOT justify the assault). Then they decided to go full Hillary and simply deny it happened. Breitbart has been very pro-Trump, so it will be interesting to see what effect this has on their coverage.

This is made even more disturbing because there’s been a string of such assaults, usually against protestors and often by attendees, at Trump rallies (including a recent incident in Louisville). Trump seems to attract a lot of thuggish elements and doesn’t seem to care about their misbehavior. This is definitely NOT what conservatives should accept from someone who wishes to be our Leader. We’ve already had enough of that from the Obamathugs.

During the Sicilian campaign in July 1943, there were several atrocities committed by the Seventh Army. Patton never specifically called for such behavior, but his militant rhetoric implicitly encouraged it. Those who claim to stand for civilized values must try to live up to their standards.

The Trumpkins are already pooh-poohing this. It wasn’t Trump who did this, it was just his campaign manager, don’t ya know. I mean a man (Trump’s no. 1) physically assaulting a woman is not nearly so bad as passing on information from CNN about the possibility of Ben Carson leaving the contest. (By Cruz’s communications director, i.e. someone further down the totem-pole)

I am beginning to ask how the Trumpkins are any different from the cult-of-personality,Hillary-worshiping, Demorats. Go on line and see how they turn on Senater Mike Lee now that he has endorsed Cruz. “He’s a sell-out”, “part of the establishment”, “low-life”, “RINO” and my favorite,

Mike Lee is the product of generations of Mormon inbreeding and he cares only about making the rich richer and that does not include any of you sad Breitbart posters.

Trump has truly attracted a large contingent from the less salubrious crevices of our society.

Ethics, we don’t need no damn ethics! (But will accuse others of having none.)

I just checked the Drudge Report Poll and over 35% say Cruz won the debate. This is the best result he has received so far.

The actual no. of votes is still relatively small, (under 150,000) so we will have to see how he does by tomorrow morning. I don’t believe he has ever gotten above about 25% in the past and was mostly in the high teens.

In what the liberal fascists will claim (falsely) as a response to the occasional mild thuggishness at Trump rallies, an organized mob of liberal fascists linked to moveon.org (and probably other groups) basically halted a Trump rally in Chicago tonight. If there were any semblance of fairness in the synoptic media, they would condemn mob and demand that the Demagogues condemn them due to their inciteful rhetoric — especially the Fascist Messiah and Bernie Sanders (who was heavily endorsed by moveon).

Something tells me that a President Trump would not only fire striking air traffic controllers, he’d use fire hoses to wash away any new “Occupy Wall Street” movement into the gutter where they belong. And he would be cheered. And I would cheer. It’s about time these agitators got their comeuppance. Trump does not seem like the man who will glorify urinating in public.

That was surely Rush’s take on this issue, at least regarding why it won’t hurt Trump and may even help him. It’s about time somebody stopped doing belly-rolls in front of the nihilists. Whether that Breitbart reporter qualified as such is a good question. But just as a certainly insane and immoral crowed had no bones about their president getting spiritual advice from a man who said “God damn America,” so a significant portion of the population could care less if a few agitators were given a boot up the ass.

I share your views. Every time I read about another Black Shakedowns Matter riot, I wonder where all that paramilitary police equipment is when they need it. A few good machine guns would do a world of good. (By the way, the first time I recall having such a reaction is reading about the Mississippi racists who tried to stop James Meredith from enrolling at Ole Miss.)

What we’re seeing increasingly is the same sort of instability we saw in 1968, which led Allen Drury to do Capable of Honor with its attack on media bias, the illiberalism of professional liberals, and the danger of riotous protest. The country has gone far downhill since then, but I doubt their links to this violence will help the Demagogues this year either.

These professional agitators are using the same methods used by the Montagnard mobs in the French Assembly which eventually led to Robespierre and the Terror. They are the same tactics used by the Leftists who tried to take over Germany after WWI and the Bolsheviks who did take over Russia in 1917.

At the risk of using another Nazi analogy ( 🙂 ) – the Brownshirts won in Chicago yesterday when they caused enough of a ruckus to shutdown a Trump rally. They will undoubtedly be emboldened to use this tactic again.

Bill Ayers is supposedly an intelligent man. I wonder if the irony is lost on him that the shoe is on the other foot now, that he is the establishment and the tactics he used 50 years ago to rail against the establishment are the same he uses today to silence those opposing the establishment.

Ayers embodies the Left. I question whether he is capable of introspection or has his malignant ideology metastasized? Maybe he isn’t all that intelligent after all. But then neither were the Brownshirts and they still won.

Ann Coulter pointed out in Demonic that the Left not only relies heavily on mob actions, but itself behaves like a giant mob. And as the saying goes, the IQ of a mob is the average intelligence divided by the size of the mob.

Yes, I just read about that, Mr. Kung, and commented on it elsewhere. Read Lifson’s article on the topic, especially the excerpt from Shapiro’s resignation letter.

Here’s a video I found posted in the comments section that seems to show that Michelle Fields is yet another victim-whore. It’s quite possible that Lewandowski merely grabbed her arm for a moment. We really need to get our pennies together and start sending out a StubbornThings reporter and thus try to get beyond the filter of the media.

I believe the main reason the eGOP opposes Trump (and Cruz), as was stated earlier, is because they don’t control them. But the underlying reason is what a Trump presidency could mean to their power positions. If Trump (or Cruz) is elected, their monopoly of the so-called opposition party would be at risk because the anti-establishment movement would gain momentum. The thinking that it would be better for them to have Hillary elected is because it would allow the eGOP to continue to be the go-along opposition party and it would be status quo for the eGOP power brokers. A renegade Republican president storming into the temple and chasing out the money changers is exactly what the eGOP does not want.

In many ways the quintessence of the GOP Establishment is Bob Michel, who was the party leader in the House before Newt. Michel always had a minority, but he got along well enough with the Demagogue leaders that they always tossed him enough crumbs to satisfy him. In return, he accepted his minority position — though in the end he did allow Newt to make the effort that led to victory in 1994. The Beltway Bandits would rather be the majority than the minority, but most important is actually leading the party and thus getting all of whatever perks there are.

At the risk of using another Nazi analogy ( 🙂 ) – the Brownshirts won in Chicago yesterday when they caused enough of a ruckus to shutdown a Trump rally. They will undoubtedly be emboldened to use this tactic again.

Hitlerian comparisons are appropriate on all sides, Mr. Lesser. And I think we should note that had Hitler simply retired in 1937 and wars of expansion laid aside, he would have gone down in history as a great German hero. He unified the country. He brought economic prosperity. He made people feel proud to be Germans again. And he vanquished the threat of international Communism.

One of the “gifts” the ignorant, often violent, and always mind-numbingly dishonest Left has given us is the inability to measure things reasonably. When faced with the kinds of protesters who aren’t protesters at all but thugs, we do indeed need a “strong man.” We need to take a few lessons from Hitler and his Brown Shirts, broadly speaking (one could, of course, easily look to Churchill or George Washington). We simply need to know where to draw the line.

But your supposed “classical liberal” out there will tell you that to oppose the “protesters” is to become Hitlerian or a Brown Shirt. A large portion of otherwise decent Americans have been brought up on this one-sided poison, infused by the Left whereby “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”…but only, of course, when dissenting against the right.

We put up with our education system being overrun by Marxists. But we can’t do anything about it for to simply bring some kind of balance (firing some Marxists and hiring actual qualified instructors) is “an attack on academic integrity.” Trust me. Your rank-and-file person — many who consider themselves conservative — have swallowed down this gibberish without a thought. It never occurs to them that, say, wiping the curriculum of Western Civilization out of the university is an attack on academic integrity.

McCarthy was right. There were Communists, and lots of them, in the State Department. But the Left amazingly was able to turn themselves into victims. You can fire and otherwise abuse a Christian if he won’t bake a cake for you, but if you dare fire someone for being a Communist why then that’s “McCarthyism.”

We have been tainted deeply by this stuff. Yes, there are classical Western virtues that we hold to, including the right of people to dissent…but not the right of people to use “dissent” as a dodge for shutting others up. The ability of your average person to understand even this easy distinction has been lost. I would cheer Trump, or anyone else, to bring balance back to this question.

Certainly George Washington faced this very early in his administration with the Whiskey Rebellion. Instead of waffling and inviting chaos, he put it down. And if, within reason, Trump puts down the protesters, I for one will cheer him. Whether Trump is capable of measured wisdom has yet to be seen.

Probably even as late as the summer of 1939, before the invasion of Poland. Of course, Germany would eventually have faced economic problems if it didn’t go to war, since its economy had been so heavily oriented toward militarism, but Hitler’s successor would have faced the blame.

What is very troubling about the appearance of “Brownshirts” is the response by Cruz and Rubio. Rather than use these incidents against Trump for their gain, they should denounce them for what they are – thug tactics.

Probably the thing most liked about Trump is that he’s an alley fighter and not a Marquess of Queensbury gentleman, and that’s the only way to beat the violence from the left. The right has always been at a disadvantage because we hold ourselves above such tactics, but Trump doesn’t and he can fight against the Brownshirts more effectively than anyone else on “our side”.

What is very troubling about the appearance of “Brownshirts” is the response by Cruz and Rubio. Rather than use these incidents against Trump for their gain, they should denounce them for what they are – thug tactics.

Apparently many many people, including myself, have written the Cruz campaign expressing the same sentiments.

Cruz has been making some very stupid errors recently. Calling one’s potential voters “uninformed” is not bright.

I don’t know if he has bad advisors or has lost contact with the people, but unless he smartens up, he will be soon be finished. If Ted’s supporters, like me, are beginning to get pissed off at him, he will not even be able to have influence with Trump should Trump win.

I was disappointed in the comments by Rubio and especially Cruz last night on FNC. But Trump’s decision to cancel is hardly the behavior of an alley fighter. But he no doubt will benefit next Tuesday. (It doesn’t seem to have helped him tonight, with Cruz winning two-thirds of the tiny vote cast in Wyoming caucuses for 12 of the state’s 29 delegate,, and Rubio getting the bulk of the rest.)

But Trump’s decision to cancel is hardly the behavior of an alley fighter.

I agree with you. But it is likely that Trump will eventually be forced to show some teeth to the Leftists who are organizing and participating in these schemes.

Of course, the Chicago “protest” was likely something special. Chicago has a reputation for being full of political thugs. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the present mayor, at least, gave his tacit approval to the melee.

The results of the DC caucus are now in. Rubio narrowly beat Kasich (the two Establishment candidates, no great surprise), with Trump and Cruz both falling between 10% an 15%. (Kasich, incidentally, got NO votes in Wyoming, though there were a few cast for “other”.)

DC does vote in the presidential election, though it isn’t represented in the Senate and has only a non-voting delegate in the House (like Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas).

One thing I will give Trump; all the nonsense he talks about China has the Chicoms worried and attacking him. I think this is not necessarily a bad thing. It would likely bring him more voters if anyone in the States actually read about foreign relations.

Have you ever seen the movie version of The Ugly American? This was a basic theme of both the book and its follow-up by Lederer (A Nation of Sheep), and the ending of the movie makes the point superbly.

My understanding is that The Quiet American was based on Edward Lansdale, who is fictionalized as Colonel Hillendale in the book The Ugly American. But he’s only the subject of a few chapters there. (A biography of Lansdalle is titled The Unquiet American, and argues that neither book really gets him right, among other things.)

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.